Why does society praise US Air pilot Sullenberger for his courage, rather than for his competence?

Paul K. writes:

While watching the coverage of the US Airways successful “water landing,” I realized that that expression, which I’ve heard in every pre-flight safety lecture, has a real-world application. I’d thought it was just a euphemism for “crash.”

Everyone’s talking about the courage of the pilot, Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger, but I think they’re missing the point. What he demonstrated was competence—superb competence. It’s something we don’t see much of in our political or business leaders, and it’s impressive. I don’t know why the news-gabbers prefer to praise his “courage,” but I suspect it’s partly out of political correctness. Everyone may aspire to demonstrate courage at some point in life, but not everyone is capable of real competence. Sullenberger’s high school records, which were accidentally released, indicate that he has an IQ of 132, and it may be that his high intelligence, combined with his coolness and experience, explains his competence, but it’s probably best not to dwell on that. To bring up the subject reminds people that it’s good to have a competent pilot, and some pilots are more competent than others, and so perhaps piloting airplanes is not a good field for affirmative-action hires. Since Sullenberger is one of those middle-aged white guys that has to be pushed out of the way to make room for diversity, it’s probably just as well not to focus on his competence.

By the way, I’m not questioning Sullenberger’s courage. It’s just that I suspect his performance had very little to do with overcoming fear. He probably got over that when he was piloting F4 Phantoms in the 1970s.

LA replies:

Your explanation makes sense. But it could also be simply the vulgar sentimentality and hype that dominate our mainstream culture. Every college student is an extraordinary prodigy, every movie star is a superstar, and every soldier and police officer is a hero. Forty years ago, the word “hero” was not flung around the way it is today.

Another way of explaining it is that it has to do with the transformation of a culture ordered by transcendent truth and objective standards into a culture ordered by self-esteem. To praise people truly for their actual achievements is to assert the rule of an objective moral order and objective standards over and above the self. To overpraise and hype people is to assert the sovereignty of the self over and above objective truth. In late liberal society, which kind of praise do you think most people prefer to give and receive?

- end of initial entry -

James N. writes:

Chesley Sullenberger III.

CHESLEY?

Why has no one yet commented on the distressing lack of diversity in US Airways command pilots?

CHESLEY?

III?

Sounds like a white guy. Very suspicious. Justice Department had better look into it.

Paul K. writes:

James N. writes:

“Sounds like a white guy. Very suspicious. Justice Department had better look into it.”

Don’t worry, when Hollywood makes the movie he’ll be played by Denzel Washington.

Mark A. writes:

In the film, he’ll be played by Tom Hanks. Tom’s character will be 1/2 White, 1/4 Puerto Rican, and, of course, 1/4 Persian. His slight off-color whiteness will be a major point of the film, which explore the subject of racial profiling by TSA at LaGuardia and how Hanks has to struggle to balance his goal of protecting the lives of his passengers, with George W.’s, goal of making sure all of God’s children live free of tyranny. The middle of the film will touch on the plight of Canadian Geese, and the tyranny they face from commerical jetliners. The last 10 minutes of the film will depict the crash and the rescue of the entire cabin and crew by a unlicensed water taxi piloted by Helen Hunt and Rosie Perez.

LA replies:

“… how Hanks has to struggle to balance his goal of protecting the lives of his passengers, with George W.’s, goal of making sure all of God’s children live free of tyranny.”

This is a job for—Liberalman!

Paul K. writes:

In its article today on US Air pilot Chesley B. Sullenberger III, the New York Times couldn’t go six paragraphs without inserting, out of nowhere, the name of an African-American who was in the news last year, Wesley Autrey, after he saved a man who fell on the subway tracks.

The stories have absolutely nothing to do with each other, but the Times writer must have felt it would be awkward to dwell on Sullenberger too long without mentioning that black people can be heroes too. God forbid the Times’ reader should forget that for an instant.

I checked through the Times’ original articles on Autrey, to see if it felt it necessary to mention any white heroes when it was praising him, but to my knowledge it did not.

LA replies:

Yes. Wesley Autrey, who jumped down to a subway track to save a person in the path of an oncoming train, did a genuine act of heroism, but it had nothing in common with this story, which is about an airline pilot safely landing a crippled plane. It’s intrusion here sticks out oddly. But from the point of view of liberalism, the mention of Autrey is necessary and inevitable. One of the basic rules of modern liberalism is that whites by themselves are not morally “kosher.” To be made kosher, they must in every circumstance be juxtaposed with nonwhites.

Van Wijk writes:

You wrote: “Every college student is an extraordinary prodigy, every movie star is a superstar, and every soldier and police officer is a hero. Forty years ago, the word “hero” was not flung around the way it is today.”

I’m very happy you touched on this. Now all you have to do to become a hero is enlist. That’s all. Enlist and your heroic deed will live forever.

Most disturbing is the fact that this language is endemic within the military itself. Not only are soldiers routinely called heroes, but their spouses and children as well, for all the supposed sacrifices they have to make. When I was still a soldier and heard the word so abused, I got into the habit of telling whoever would listen about Audie Murphy, a real hero. I said that if one was serious about using the word hero, here was the standard that should be met. After a time, as the word continued to be abused and medals were handed out like trinkets at Christmas, Audie Murphy became my personal shorthand for anything meaningful that has been watered down to the point of being made meaningless. I still use it. Below is Murphy’s Medal of Honor citation.

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, Company B 15th Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division.

Place and date: Near Holtzwihr France, January 26, 1945.

Entered service at: Dallas, Texas. Birth: Hunt County, near Kingston, Texas, G.O. No. 65, August 9, 1944.

Citation: Second Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by six tanks and waves of infantry. 2d Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to a prepared position in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him, to his right, one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire, which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate 2d Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad that was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued his single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way back to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack, which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. 2d Lt. Murphy’s indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy’s objective.

LA replies:

I’m blown away by Murphy’s exploits every time I read about them. I saw the movie about a year ago. It wasn’t bad, but, strangely, it significantly understated what he actually did.

David B. writes:

Audie Murphy privately said of the film, “We missed by a mile.” The movie was filmed at the army base at Fort Lewis, Washington. The feat for which Murphy was awarded the Medal of Honor took place in zero weather with snow on the ground. In the film, it looks to be in a sunny park. In the movie, Audie is on the tank destroyer firing the machine gun for a few minutes. In reality, he was on the tank for much longer. The tank was also on fire. Part of the reason the film understated Murphy’s feats was that they thought it would look unbelievable.

The above information comes from the 1989 biography by Don Graham, “No Name on the Bullet.” It is a warts-and-all portrayal and Murphy had a few warts. There is a lot on Murphy’s movie career. The title comes from what is considered his best western film. Audie Murphy did not blend in well with the Hollywood crowd, and could not bring himself to play up to people he did not respect. Try to picture Audie Murphy in Hollywood today.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 17, 2009 11:45 AM | Send